mcfly1960 said:
Dispensationalism found an ear with many of the historical premillennialists among the Presbyterians, particularly in the 1800's and early 1900's, such as Brookes... Scofield was also (at one time) a Presbyterian...as was Chafer and Woolvord and McGee. Liberalism in some of the seminaries left a vaccum among many conservative Presbyterians, and dispensationalism seemed to fill the void. But conservatives were also among its strongest critics from the beginning.
It is true that many leading dispensationalists were conservative Presbyterians. This was the case even up through the early 1950s, where most of Dallas Seminary's faculty were Presbyterian. But criticism of dispensationalism was very sporadic until it was "politicized" in the late 1930s through the 1940s.
Because of the modernist controversy, many conservative Presbyterians were either ousted or they left. At first they found much in common with non-Reformed fundamentalists. In the years shortly after Westminster Seminary was founded, about 20% of Westminster's student body were Methodists, and the faculty included premillennialist John MacRae. But soon a different camp arose who wanted a "truly Reformed" denomination - a group fighting not only against modernism but against non-Reformed fundamentalists as well. Their favorite targets were Arminianism and dispensational premillennialism.
In the OPC it came to a head in 1937 when Kuiper published an extremely critical article on Arminianism and dispensational premillennialism. John MacRae resigned from Westminster and a short while later the Bible Presbyterian Church was formed and Faith Theological Seminary founded, with MacRae as president.
The "truly Reformed" faction continued to criticize dispensationalism, especially singling out Chafer, Walvoord and Dallas Seminary, even though many Presbyterian pastors were also dispensationalists. Grads of Dallas Seminary continued to be appointed as pastors in the Presbyterian church until the 1944 PCUS AIC report condemned dispensationalism. While existing dispensational pastors were "grandfathered" and not forced to resign, all new candidates who held to dispensationalism were automatically rejected.
mcfly1960 said:
The report the PCUS issued in 1944? appears to have been a turning point where Presbyterians as a whole turned away from it because of too many conflicts with the Westminster Confession of Faith. Historical premillennialism was still considered orthodox among them, however. Even so, Chafer still remained ordained in the PCUS, even after 1944, until his death.
The 1944 PCUS AIC report misrepresented dispensationalism. Certain dispensational statements were taken out of context. Quotes from the "moderate" dispensationalists were dropped from the final report. They focused almost entirely on Chafer. However the committee never allowed Chafer to personally appear before them to defend his views.
Also it is relatively easy to find later statements from dispensationalists which clarified views, views which ran counter to everything that the AIC said dispensationalists held.
Also what is not well-known is the deep suspicion and opposition of Presbyterian premillennialists against those who criticized dispensationalism. Quite often in their zeal the critics "overstepped their bounds" - essentially making premillennialism and dispensationalism synonymous. Even in the 1944 AIC report the claim is made that the Confession of Faith runs counter to dispensationalism's teaching of multiple resurrections. However,
all premillennialists hold to at least two resurrections according to Rev 20:4-5. So while lip service was seen to be given to "allow" historical premillennialism, the criticisms revealed otherwise.